and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Show Tags

Show Tags

02 Dec 2005, 15:24

joemama142000 wrote:

The folktale that claims that a rattlesnake's age can be determined from the number of sections in its rattle is false, but only because the rattles are brittle and sometimes partially or completely break off. So if they were not so brittle, one could reliably determine a rattlesnake's age simply from the number of sections in its rattle, because one new section is formed each time a rattlesnake molts.

Which one of the following is an assumption the argument requires in order for its conclusion to properly drawn?

A) Rattlesnakes molt exactly once a year

B) The rattles of rattlesnakes of different species are identical in appearance.

C) Rattlesnakes molt more frequently when young than when old

D) The brittleness of a rattlesnake's rattle is not correlated with the length of the rattlesnake's life

E) Rattlesnakes molt as often when food is scare as they do when food is plentiful

Ill take a stab at explaining the answer:

Conclusion: If the snake's rattle was not so brittle, then one can deterimine the snakes age from the number of sections
Evidence: because the one new section is formed each time a snake molts.

A-too extreme "exactly". Lets say that all rattlesnakes molt once every two years, then the argument is still intact. You can still determine its age from the number of rattles.

B-The argument has nothing to do with appearance. they could be ugly, tall or fat but you can still detrimine its age from the number of rattles

C-Lets say all rattlesnakes molt more frequently when old than young. Here is an example, average age of a rattlesnake is 8 years. Lets say they all molt twice a year when young and 6 times a year when old. Still, the agrument is intact. You can still determine its age from the number of rattles.

D-I think "brittleness" is out of scope here because the argument already saying that "if brittlenss was not a factor, then you can determine the number of rattles"

E-Here, If snakes do not add on new sections to its rattle when they eat as when they dont eat, then the argument falls apart. Ex. average age of rattlesnakes is 8 years, you dont know when food is scarce and when food is not scarce. If they molt 2 times when food is not scarce vs. 1 times when food is scare, then you will not be able to tell how old the snake actually is.

Re: The folktale that claims that a rattlesnake's age can be [#permalink]

Show Tags

04 Jul 2016, 04:51

It is E.

A. This answer choice is sufficient for the argument to work, but it doesn't have to be true for the argument to work. The length of the interval doesn't matter as long as there is regularity to the molting rate.B. This answer choice is irrelevant. We don't care what the rattles look like.C. This negation strengthens the argument. In its original form, it weakens the argument.D. We don't care about brittleness' relationship with lifespan.E. This negation destroys the argument. We need rattlesnakes to molt at regular, predictable rates if we are to determine a rattlesnake's age by the number of sections in its rattle alone.

gmatclubot

Re: The folktale that claims that a rattlesnake's age can be
[#permalink]
04 Jul 2016, 04:51